Remak: animal cells arise by division that begins with the nucleus
The claim that animal cells are not assembled anew out of structureless matter but arise by division, and that division always begins with the nucleus.
The claim was set out in 1852 by the Pole Robert Remak, who worked in Berlin without a chair or a laboratory. For ten years he watched under the microscope the cleavage of the frog egg and the formation of blood and muscle in the chick embryo, and in 1852 stated it plainly. This went against Schwann, for whom the intercellular substance of cartilage and connective tissue served as a 'cytoblastema'. In his book on vertebrate development (1850-1855) Remak carried the argument through: division is the predominant if not the only way new cells arise.
In Lagunoff's words, Remak's evidence was poorly received, and animal cell division won general acceptance only after Virchow forcefully promulgated it.
Why this date
The date follows the paper 'Ueber extracellulare Entstehung thierischer Zellen und über Vermehrung derselben durch Theilung', Archiv für Anatomie, Physiologie und wissenschaftliche Medicin, 1852, 47-57 (bibliographic details checked against the bibliography of Hintzsche's DSB article and the bibliography of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry 'Philosophy of Cell Biology'). The upper bound of the label is 1855, when publication of the three-part 'Untersuchungen über die Entwickelung der Wirbelthiere' (1850-1855), with its extended presentation of the evidence, was completed. Hintzsche notes that Remak did not specifically describe mitotic division until 1858.
What it grew from
-
Schleiden and Schwann: the cell as the common unit of structure and growth in plants and animals
improved · Confidence: high
Remak accepted Schwann's cell as the unit of the animal body but replaced the erroneous mechanism of its origin: not free formation in a cytoblastema but division of an existing cell, beginning with the nucleus. Hintzsche and Lagunoff both present this as a direct correction of Schwann.
Dispute: The kind is "improved", not "refuted by": only part of Schwann's theory (the mode of cell formation) was refuted, while its central entity, the cell as the unit of life, was retained and strengthened. cell_theory_1839 is therefore not marked as a dead end.
Link sources
- Erich Hintzsche, «Remak, Robert», Complete Dictionary of Scientific Biography (2008) Verified 20 Sep 2026
Of particular importance was Remak's suggestion that, contrary to Schwann's view, the intercellular substances of the cartilage and connective tissue cannot be a cytoblastema.
- David Lagunoff, A Polish, Jewish Scientist in 19th-Century Prussia, Science 298 (5602), 2331 (2002)
Contradicting Schwann, Remak placed animal cell division at the forefront of cell theory.
- David Lagunoff, A Polish, Jewish Scientist in 19th-Century Prussia, Science 298 (5602), 2331 (2002)
Schwann was convinced that a similar sequence occurred in animal tissues, but placed the formation of most animal cells in the extracellular milieu (the "cytoblastem").
"Verified" means that on that day the quotation was found at the address given, word for word. No date means we have not been able to open the source yet, not that the quotation is wrong.
- Erich Hintzsche, «Remak, Robert», Complete Dictionary of Scientific Biography (2008) Verified 20 Sep 2026
What grew out of it
-
Virchow: every cell from a cell, and disease as the life of cells under altered conditions
influenced · Confidence: high
The conclusion that new cells arise only by division of existing ones was printed by Remak in 1852; it won general acceptance when Virchow proclaimed it in 1855. Lagunoff writes that Virchow did not mention Remak at the time and acknowledged his evidence only three years later.
Dispute: A dispute about priority and borrowing. Lagunoff speaks of Virchow's failure to acknowledge Remak in 1855 and his grudging acknowledgement in 1858; Kearl writes that the idea was not original and that Remak's publication went largely unnoticed; Goschler (New DSB) notes that Virchow was effective in squeezing academic rivals such as Remak out of the market. None of these sources states outright that Virchow took the conclusion from Remak's paper, hence the kind is "influenced" rather than "improved": Virchow came to division by his own route (according to Lagunoff, he began to move away from Schwann in 1850), but the shared setting and Remak's priority are recorded by historians.
Link sources
- David Lagunoff, A Polish, Jewish Scientist in 19th-Century Prussia, Science 298 (5602), 2331 (2002)
Yet, his evidence and arguments for the division of animal cells were poorly received, and animal cell division failed to achieve general acceptance until it was forcefully promulgated by Rudolf Virchow.
- David Lagunoff, A Polish, Jewish Scientist in 19th-Century Prussia, Science 298 (5602), 2331 (2002)
When he finally issued his resounding pronouncement in favor of cell division in 1855, he did not acknowledge the contributions of Remak (9). Three years later, Virchow grudgingly acknowledged Remak's evidence for cell division in the ovum (10).
- Megan Kearl, Rudolf Carl Virchow (1821-1902), Embryo Project Encyclopedia, Arizona State University (2012) Verified 20 Sep 2026
The idea that new cells arose from pre-existing cells in both diseased and healthy tissue was not original. Robert Remak, a neuroscientist, had already come to this conclusion in 1852, though his publication went largely unnoticed.
- Marcel Florkin, «Schwann, Theodor Ambrose Hubert», Complete Dictionary of Scientific Biography (2008) Verified 20 Sep 2026
Ackerknecht’s fourth cell theory, which remians current, is that of Remak and Virchow, the first part of which follows Schwann in acknowledging the cellular composition of organisms, with the cell as the vital element, the bearer of all the characteristics of life.
"Verified" means that on that day the quotation was found at the address given, word for word. No date means we have not been able to open the source yet, not that the quotation is wrong.
- David Lagunoff, A Polish, Jewish Scientist in 19th-Century Prussia, Science 298 (5602), 2331 (2002)
Node sources
- Erich Hintzsche, «Remak, Robert», Complete Dictionary of Scientific Biography (2008) Verified 20 Sep 2026
By 1852 Remak was able to announce certain conclusions concerning cell division. He set aside some of his cautious earlier formulations, and asserted that the cleavage of the frog egg is due to a continuous process of division that always begins with the nucleus.
- Erich Hintzsche, «Remak, Robert», Complete Dictionary of Scientific Biography (2008) Verified 20 Sep 2026
Of particular importance was Remak's suggestion that, contrary to Schwann's view, the intercellular substances of the cartilage and connective tissue cannot be a cytoblastema. (It must be mentioned, however, that Remak made no specific note of mitotic cell division until 1858, when he presented an account of the formation of the blood in a five- day-old chick embryo.)
- Erich Hintzsche, «Remak, Robert», Complete Dictionary of Scientific Biography (2008) Verified 20 Sep 2026
Publication of Remak's Untersuchungen was completed in 1855.
- David Lagunoff, A Polish, Jewish Scientist in 19th-Century Prussia, Science 298 (5602), 2331 (2002)
His major contribution to cell theory was the evidence that new animal cells arise by binary fission of pre-existing cells.
- David Lagunoff, A Polish, Jewish Scientist in 19th-Century Prussia, Science 298 (5602), 2331 (2002)
Remak concluded his book with an extended presentation of the evidence for cell division as the predominant if not exclusive means for generating new cells. Yet, his evidence and arguments for the division of animal cells were poorly received, and animal cell division failed to achieve general acceptance until it was forcefully promulgated by Rudolf Virchow.
- William Bechtel, Andrew Bollhagen, Philosophy of Cell Biology, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2019) Verified 20 Sep 2026
Remak, R., 1852, “Ueber Extracellulare Entstehung Thierischer Zellen Und Über Vermehrung Derselben Durch Theilung”, Archiv für Anatomie, Physiologie und wissenschaftliche Medicin, 47–57.
"Verified" means that on that day the quotation was found at the address given, word for word. No date means we have not been able to open the source yet, not that the quotation is wrong.